This is STILL (nothing changed!)the Bid Evaluation of the proposed IRR as of May 12, 2009 at the GPPB Website RDV and Engrjhez. We have a lenghty discussion on this matter thru this media.

I think the GPPB-IATWG are not reading this forum..mwuaaaah!

32.4.3. In case of discrepancies between: (a) bid prices in figures and in words, the latter shall prevail; (b) total price per item and unit price for the item as extended or multiplied by the quantity of that item, the latter shall prevail; (c) stated total price and the actual sum of prices of component items, the latter shall prevail; (d) unit cost in the detailed estimate and unit cost in the bill of quantities, the latter shall prevail.I hope they would have time to have an in-depth study on this matter before finalizing the IRR para di kami malito during the Bid Evaluation specially sa paragraph (a) which has been discussed in the preceding page.

My query is related to my project here in Mindanao with the DOST as the owner of the project which was awarded last April2008 and will end by September 2009;

The facts are:1. Said agency wrote a letter requesting me to return an amount of money after discovery by their Resident Engineer that my detailed estimate has a clerical error in relation to its unit prices;

From the above information, obvious clerical error is found on the total cost for both items, the agency says that there is a savings (money) that should be deducted in our Total Bid Price. Their defense is the RA 9184 stating that incase of discrepancies, unit cost shall prevail which will result to an amount of PhP125,900.00.

My Question now will be:

1.Will that section in the RA 9184 (32.4.3) which states that ” In case of discrepancies between: (a) bid prices in figures and in words, the latter shall prevail; (b) total price per item and unit price for the item as extended or multiplied by the quantity of that item, the latter shall prevail; (c) stated total price and the actual sum of prices of component items, the latter shall prevail; (d) unit cost in the detailed estimate and unit cost in the bill of quantities, the latter shall prevail." Apply in this case? considering that my problem is on the detailed estimate and not on the Bill of Quantities which on the first page of the Financial Proposal?

2.Can the agency claim such amount?

3.If yes, I believe that they had already waived their capacity to claim such amount because they had not raised this problem during the Post Qualification Stage. They only found this problem on the later part of the project. I believe that they had already done their part evaluating my detailed estimate. I also believe that such request by them is unconstitutional considering that it is their negligence that they had not found this error in evaluating before it was awarded or even after Post qualification.

1.Will that section in the RA 9184 (32.4.3) which states that ” In case of discrepancies between: (a) bid prices in figures and in words, the latter shall prevail; (b) total price per item and unit price for the item as extended or multiplied by the quantity of that item, the latter shall prevail; (c) stated total price and the actual sum of prices of component items, the latter shall prevail; (d) unit cost in the detailed estimate and unit cost in the bill of quantities, the latter shall prevail." Apply in this case? considering that my problem is on the detailed estimate and not on the Bill of Quantities which on the first page of the Financial Proposal?

At this stage I would say NO on the premise that the project has already been implemented (although not yet completed). The BAC cannot extend its evaluation and correction at this very stage because their job was already done. BAC's failure to see and apply the correction on the bid evaluation shall soon be holding them liable of their actions or inactions. However, that will not excuse the claim of the government from those discrepancies. The COA being a constitutional body tasked to review and audit all government transactions may require the said refund in behalf of the Procuring Entity. This may be opened up on post audits where the TAS may issue their findings on this.

abdlkhald wrote:2.Can the agency claim such amount?

The agency may try to resolve and do it so, or as I have explained above, the COA can do it in behalf of the government if already paid.

abdlkhald wrote:3.If yes, I believe that they had already waived their capacity to claim such amount because they had not raised this problem during the Post Qualification Stage. They only found this problem on the later part of the project. I believe that they had already done their part evaluating my detailed estimate. I also believe that such request by them is unconstitutional considering that it is their negligence that they had not found this error in evaluating before it was awarded or even after Post qualification.

Negligence on the part of BAC does not entail waiving of government rights. While a few people knowingly or unknowingly committed the said mistake by commission or omission, the law provides that all government transactions shall be in such a way they are most advantageous by all means. Your arithmetical (i prefer it than a less appropriate clerical) error cannot escape the violation it have committed under the above mentioned section of the IRR-A GPRA.

abdlkhald wrote:Pls. answer my query. tnx

I hope our friend(s) here from the IBP and COA shed more light on this also.

engrjhez®

Grand Master

Number of posts : 2481Age : 39Company/Agency : City Government of Bacoor [Region IV-A, Province of Cavite]Occupation/Designation : Office of the City Legal Service (OCLS) / Certified National Trainer - PhilGEPSRegistration date : 2008-10-31

good day!!! just want to ask po, that if there is a significant change in the circumstances affecting the bid area, can the bidding for the subject property be terminated/canceled? with regards to bid bonds, can that be automatically returned? thanks in advance..

mmp wrote:good day!!! just want to ask po, that if there is a significant change in the circumstances affecting the bid area, can the bidding for the subject property be terminated/canceled? with regards to bid bonds, can that be automatically returned? thanks in advance..

there is, mmp. excerpt from the amended IRR;

Section 41. Reservation Clause

The Head of the Procuring Entity reserves the right to reject any and all bids, declare afailure of bidding, or not award the contract in the following situations:a) If there is prima facie evidence of collusion between appropriate public officers oremployees of the procuring entity, or between the BAC and any of the bidders, or ifthe collusion is between or among the bidders themselves, or between a bidder and athird party, including any act which restricts, suppresses or nullifies or tends torestrict, suppress or nullify competition;

b) If the BAC is found to have failed in following the prescribed bidding procedures; or

c) For any justifiable and reasonable ground where the award of the contract will notredound to the benefit of the GOP, as follows: (i) if the physical and economicconditions have significantly changed so as to render the project no longereconomically, financially, or technically feasible, as determined by the Head of theProcuring Entity; (ii) if the project is no longer necessary as determined by the Headof the Procuring Entity; and (iii) if the source of funds for the project has beenwithheld or reduced through no fault of the procuring entity.

Section 42. Contract Implementation and Termination

42.1. The contract implementation guidelines for the procurement of goods, supplies andmaterials are provided for in Annex “D” of this IRR.42.2. The contract implementation guidelines for the procurement of infrastructureprojects are provided for in Annex “E” of this IRR.42.3. The contract implementation guidelines for the procurement of consulting servicesare provided for in Annex “F” of this IRR.42.4. No incentive bonus, in whatever form or for whatever purpose, shall be allowed.42.5. Procuring Entities may issue a letter of credit in favor of a local or foreign suppliers;Provided, that, no payment on the letter of credit shall be made until delivery andacceptance of the goods as certified to by the procuring entity in accordance withthe delivery schedule provided for in the contract have been concluded; Providedfurther, that, the cost for the opening of letter of credit shall be for the account ofthe local or foreign supplier and must be stated in the Bidding Documents.

the Return of all the Bonds is automatic for the PE if the circumstances leading to the termination is at no fault of the bidder/s.

vince wrote:DO 57 sets the max % of indirect cost in the computation of the ABC among others, yes it is the procuring entity that prepares the ABC and we prepare the ABC in accordance with DO 57, however in the conduct of bid evaluation, is it necesary to check if bidders also comply with this guideline?

I agree with RDV - it's a NO.

When RA.9184 came into being, the upper and lower limits of bid price (for infra) were repealed. Nowadays, a bidder may drop their bid up to an absolute zero (0) which means they'll do the project for free. Failure to commit shall forfeit their bid securities and further, perpetual disqualification in joining government procurements.

Every contractor has their ways and means to accomplish the same project differently. Regardless of their methodologies, as long as the specifications are attained, and the project completely delivered, they are entitled to submit their bids as they want it to be (provided the rest of IRR-GPRA and PBDs are complied).

Unfortunately the COA during their contract review, requires that contractors comply with this DO, which I believe is contrary to the provisions of RA 9184. I think there is a need for COA to update thier guidelines to conform with RA 9184. I hope the GPPB will look into this.

vince wrote:Unfortunately the COA during their contract review, requires that contractors comply with this DO, which I believe is contrary to the provisions of RA 9184. I think there is a need for COA to update thier guidelines to conform with RA 9184. I hope the GPPB will look into this.

D.O 57 was made to guide government estimators of the DPWH. It is not requirement of the COA anymore.. and speaking of the COA, i believed you are right vince, some COA circulars (yung iba 1980 pa) relating to project implementation like infra, are already obsolete. these orders are already overtaken by laws like RA 9184. I hope ma revisit ulit yung guidelines nila, kasi naiipit kami kung minsan kung anung rules and ssundin lalo na't nobody would "blinked an eye"..

Wow! All of you guys should have gold stars...you are all really, really helpful.

Sirs, may i refer this particular evaluation for infra. During the bid evaluation, we noticed that our lowest bid quoted that of a substandard material (say for CHB its P6.00/pc), and his labor cost is also very low (computed at 12% of materials cost), and the taxes computed was only 1.44% of the materials costs + labor costs). All his calculations are way lower than ours, considering that we have also considered economy during preparation of ABC with the end-user. If we recalculate now, can we use our costings or this is not acceptable/right?

If doing that is not legal, we are to assume that in his pricing of his materials, VAT is already included, but we are to apply the right tax percentage, and the calculated bid now is more than his submitted bid - the calculated bid should prevail po?

eagerlearner wrote:Wow! All of you guys should have gold stars...you are all really, really helpful.

Sirs, may i refer this particular evaluation for infra. During the bid evaluation, we noticed that our lowest bid quoted that of a substandard material (say for CHB its P6.00/pc), and his labor cost is also very low (computed at 12% of materials cost), and the taxes computed was only 1.44% of the materials costs + labor costs). All his calculations are way lower than ours, considering that we have also considered economy during preparation of ABC with the end-user. If we recalculate now, can we use our costings or this is not acceptable/right?

If doing that is not legal, we are to assume that in his pricing of his materials, VAT is already included, but we are to apply the right tax percentage, and the calculated bid now is more than his submitted bid - the calculated bid should prevail po?

Number of posts : 2481Age : 39Company/Agency : City Government of Bacoor [Region IV-A, Province of Cavite]Occupation/Designation : Office of the City Legal Service (OCLS) / Certified National Trainer - PhilGEPSRegistration date : 2008-10-31

eagerlearner wrote:Wow! All of you guys should have gold stars...you are all really, really helpful.

Sirs, may i refer this particular evaluation for infra. During the bid evaluation, we noticed that our lowest bid quoted that of a substandard material (say for CHB its P6.00/pc), and his labor cost is also very low (computed at 12% of materials cost), and the taxes computed was only 1.44% of the materials costs + labor costs). All his calculations are way lower than ours, considering that we have also considered economy during preparation of ABC with the end-user. If we recalculate now, can we use our costings or this is not acceptable/right?

If doing that is not legal, we are to assume that in his pricing of his materials, VAT is already included, but we are to apply the right tax percentage, and the calculated bid now is more than his submitted bid - the calculated bid should prevail po?

Thank you and more power!

You cannot use your cost per unit but the bidder has to use the quantity that your provided in the BOQ. If, however, you have doubt on the unit price quoted by the bidder, the IRR allows the BAC, thru the BAC Secretariat, to request the bidder in writing for a clarification of his bid, in this case the unit price used by the bidder. The bidder has to respond to that request for clarification also in writing. This is one of the exceptions to the "No Contact Rule" during bid evaluation.

As to the tax, so that all bidders are on equal footing for purposes of comparison of bids, you are allowed to include taxes or correct tax computations in the bidder's submitted price.